D&D 5E Do We Need Another "Damage On A Miss" Poll?

I used to be an adventurer like you, but then an arrow missed my knee.

I think this could become a great professional wrestling gimmick match-- the Damage-On-A-Miss On A Pole Match.

Oh yea poll, you have slept for over 500 days in the archives, and I have summoned thee, for you are relevant again. Rise... rise... rise again!

(BTW, apparently Instagram is a big thing now. D&D Next is still in playtest. Otherwise, nothing much is new.)

Brilliant necro!

I came across to original Reaper poll from the first packet, which had 64% say believability was OK and balance was OK, and that was in march, or may? Anyway the numbers are now showing the opposite.

I bet you any money if they polled people using a clear question : do you find this believable, most people would say no. Or at least, not 2/3rds. I do believe this largely falls on edition lines, so it's a touchy subject, but polls can be misleading, and should be clear.

I mean, they even worded the GWF ability in a sort of a rhetorical sleight of hand to hide its true implication from a casual feedback responder. There is no way 2/3rds of the population would be on board with this mechanic if they saw it in action for an extended period of time and realized, "wait a minute, our fighter has never once missed in the entire campaign so far"...scratches head. Because forum debates aside, I don't think casual gamers who play the game, and they are the majority, want to know about minutiae of game design implications, but something like this, once you realize it, will eventually stick out like a sore thumb and cause all sorts of arguments as the two camps congeal their opinions.

Another point is : if Rodney Thompson is designing by committee aka poll data, shouldn't they hold mechanics to a higher standard of approval than 64% ? That's terribly low for something that's used every round for the entire campaign by 3 core classes. 64% is old Reaper, from what it looks as far as now, it looks like damage-on-a-miss is losing the fight for public opinion.

Regardless, an 80+% approval rating should be what they should strive for in all round-by-round mechanics, definitely all the fighting styles should be held to a higher standard than some capstone abilities or rare MC combos. You can't get more basic than a warrior who uses a big sword, can you. That should be the GOLD standard, 95% approval for ALL their fighting styles. Don't tell me to play a big-sword guy who takes +1 to AC because he can't stand damage on a miss. It would bug me just as much if I saw another fighter in the game, either a PC or an NPC, pick that up.

And it's not just looming over your head at 1st level, if you MC 3 times, you could have up to 4 fighting styles at the same time. There's a good chance you could literally run out of other options, and have no choice but to take it.

I just don't see D&D getting back to #1 from Pathfinder if they so callously disregard something that 1/2 the playerbase actively disbelieves, and the other half is only lukewarm about. It's obvious that Rodney is the guy pushing this, it's the second time they put it into a packet, makes me wonder why they removed it the first time if it polled so well. Perhaps they didn't want the forums flooded with the distraction of so many being so bothered by it that it drowned out the discussion of everything else? If so, tip of the hat to you, Mr Thomspon, for pulling a fast one on us and only reintroducing this in the final packet.

There is no way D&D Next will reclaim the #1 spot if they're content with 64% approval for core mechanics. That's like a D- on your report card. You can't get into a good college with that, let alone an Ivy League. Pathfinder is now like the MIT underdog that everyone wants to go to, Wotc needs to aim higher, much higher than 64% approval (or 51%) to steal those customers back. Mechanics matter to those people more than the name on the cover.

If it didn't, they'd have all stuck with 3.5 or 4 official D&D products. Mechanics matter to sales. High ratings translate into more sales, duh. It might be polling well in the official survey, only because it's written vaguely. The only poll data I'll believe is one they show with us publically, and ones that have simple and clear questions. In my country, they have this thing called the Clarity Act, because the QC government tried to separate over a BS referendum that nobody could tell based on the question whether yes meant you were pro-separation (it was No). They actually had to write a law to prevent future abuses like that.

What struck me is that this controversy is up and alive 2 years later. History repeating itself; and maybe not learning from the past.

Raith5 said:

Brilliant necro!


View attachment 59466

Click to expand...

Where's George??

Here he is - couldnt get him working before.



I love a bit of procrastination to start the day!

Burninator said:

I bet you any money if they polled people using a clear question : do you find this believable, most people would say no. Or at least, not 2/3rds. I do believe this largely falls on edition lines, so it's a touchy subject, but polls can be misleading, and should be clear.

Click to expand...

I dont find damage on a miss to be remotely unbelievable but I accept that many do. I think you are right to point to edition lines - and the traditional tightly restricted take on what skilled fighters should be able to do. After all damage on missed area of attacks has always been in the game.

But I dont think D&D should be tightly restriction by traditional views. I think damage on a miss for skilled martial types open up some interesting gaming opportunities. That said there should be options. The bottom line is that if you cant narrate the ability you should not choose it.